Skip to main content

Cross-Posted at
NOTE: Thanks to an incredibly obvious (in hindsight) solution suggested by Greg Dworkin of dKos, I've been able to resolve the problem I was grumping about a few days ago with (relative) ease: I simply moved the revamped/expanded Medicaid/CHIP enrollment figures off onto their own spreadsheet!

This gives me enough room to properly separate out the confusing Medicaid/CHIP figures, while also freeing up some elbow room on the main (Private QHP) spreadsheet for potential future additions.

A few days ago I posted an exclusive analysis of the ACA Medicaid/CHIP enrollment data as provided by the official HHS report released on 1/13, the CMS report released on 12/20, as well as the other various sources for ACA-related Medicaid/CHIP enrollment that I've already been posting/linking to since I started this site.

My general conclusion was that the actual grand total number of Medicaid/CHIP enrollments since October 1st, 2013 is actually far higher than the 3.9 million cited by the Obama administration (which was based on the 12/20 CMS report) or even the 4.5 - 4.6 million that both I and Glenn Kessler at the Washington Post have agreed are more accurate up until now.

Instead, I concluded that the actual grand total number is closer to well over 6 million, when you include all enrollments: Federal exchange-based; State exchange-based; Direct enrollments via the regular state Medicaid offices; special/one-time automatic transfers of people from existing state-level healthcare programs (such as LIHP in California and Commonwealth Care in Massachusetts), and more recent Medicaid enrollment data which has come over the 3 weeks since the 12/28 date cut-off in the HHS report.

An official at CMS reviewed my work, and while they were unable to confirm/verify my final conclusion, they did agree that my methodology is correct.

I was hesitant to actually modify the spreadsheet itself, however, since a) I could still be wrong and b) frankly, some of the numbers still just don't make sense even when using the "tic-tac-toe grid" system for pulling apart the reports which should have prevented double-counting and so forth.

In general, I've concluded that for most states, I should simply use the higher of the two figures when comparing the same dates (10/1 - 11/30), on the presumption that the lower one is already being counted as part of the higher one.

In the case of Nevada, for example, HHS states over 28,000 exchange-based enrollees as of 11/30, while CMS claims only 10,630 exchange-based plus direct enrollments for the same 2-month period. I could simply add the two together, but according to the CMS official, that would mean double-counting the exchange-based enrollees. Instead, I'm using the 28K figure alone.

This is even more obvious in the case of Vermont, where HHS claims 4,577 Medicaid/CHIP enrollees as of 11/30, which defintely looks about right...but CMS claims only 115 people (that's 115, not 115K) exchange-based plus direct enrollments. Obviously the 4,577 figure is correct here.

Conversely, look at Hawaii. HHS reports ZERO (technically "n/a") exchange enrollees as of 11/30, while CMS claims 7,791 exchange+direct. In that case, it's pretty clear that the 7,791 number should be used.

In other cases, the special/one-time transfer numbers are most likely already accounted for in the CMS report. For instance, HHS lists Oregon as having 39,711 (manual) exchange-based enrollments, while CMS lists 99,272 "direct" enrollments. At the same time, however, Oregon has also been touting their automatic transfer of 118,000 (as of Jan. 15) people into the Oregon Health Authority by using existing food stamp information. It's highly likely that most, if not all of the 99,272 "direct" enrollments are included in that 118K figure, and so on.

As a result, the actual, accurate enrollment numbers are still partly a guessing game, and I've had to come up with the most logical system I can for tallying everything. As a result, I'm probably undercounting some states while overcounting others, but I'm fairly confident that the overall total is right around 6.2 million for everything.

The same caveats noted earlier still apply, however:

--Some direct enrollments actually come from prior to 10/1/13 and simply weren't entered until after that date

--Some of the "special" tallies may still be being double-counted (though I think this is minimal)

--Most importantly, HHS has already admitted that some of the Medicaid/CHIP enrollments are NOT NEW AT ALL, and are simply existing Medicaid/CHIP enrollees who have renewed their registration in the programs.

This last point is the most important one. If the total enrollees add up to 3.9 million, it may be that only 1 million of these are new to the system. If the total is 4.5 million, it may still only be 1 million new enrollees. Assuming I'm correct, and the total is actually around 6.2 may still only be 1 million new enrollees. Please keep this in mind when interpreting these calculations.

This question is starting to be at least partly answered, however. Washington State separates out their "redeterminations" (ie, renewals) from new enrollees, and both Colorado and Maryland have started doing so in their most recent press releases/reports as well (Colorado simply doesn't include renewals in their reports at all, while Maryland appears to have started backing their numbers out from a higher total). So, that's at least 3 states out of 51 (w/DC) that are doing so. Hopefully the other 48 will do the same soon.

In any event, in order to display all of this new data on the website in an easy-to-read format, I've had to make a radical change in the structure of the completely moving the Medicaid/CHIP data onto a completely separate one.

Going forward, the original spreadsheet will only contain Private QHP enrollments (whether via the Exchanges, Directly enrolled through insurance companies or in the form of 19-26 year olds staying on their parents' health insurance plans thanks to the ACA.

Meanwhile, all Medicaid/CHIP and other publicly-funded ACA health plan data has been moved to a second spreadsheet.


(yes, that's right...everything above is only the FIRST of two major ACA-related stories today...) the most eagerly-awaited enrollment update we've had in weeks, California has finally let the dust settle on their Christmas-week craziness and have released new, comprehensive enrollment data for both Private QHPs as well as Medicaid/CHIP, and the numbers are impressive indeed: After closing out 2013 with just over a half a million private enrollments (about 1,300 more trickled in in the final 3 days of the year), the first half of January has proven that, while the completely expected post-December drop-off did happen, enrollments are still proceeding at a very healthy pace, as over 125,000 more people enrolled in the first 15 days of the month, more than a 25% increase since New Year's Eve. Broken out, that comes to over 8,300 per day for California alone.

It's also worth noting that with this update, the total Private QHP enrollment figure has now broken the 2.5 million mark.

Meanwhile, Medicaid enrollments have also continued to show a similar 25% gain, up from around 460,000 (or 472,000...see today's Medicaid Spreadsheet update) up to 584,000.

Adding these numbers to the Medicaid/CHIP spreadsheet overhaul noted earlier today, the grand total of all health plan enrollments (Exchange QHPs, Direct QHPs, Exchange Medicaid/CHIP, Direct Medicaid/CHIP and Sub26ers) now totals a whopping 11.9 Million people in all.

While the usual caveats apply (most notably, many of all 5 categories already had insurance of one sort or another prior to the exchanges opening in October), this is still pretty impressive.

Originally posted to Brainwrap on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 12:42 PM PST.

Also republished by Good News.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Pat K California, Sylv, chuck utzman, TXdem, CJB, Bill in Portland Maine, mwm341, askew, Liberal Thinking, Rolfyboy6, NYmom, RunawayRose, greenbird, dengre, wu ming, Delevie, eeff, dsb, elfling, Just Saying, Doctor Who, susans, Wee Mama, whenwego, Ad Absurdum, roses, pedrito, paulitics, itskevin, dksbook, wader, PresentMoment, annan, HeedTheMessenger, riverlover, BlogDog, ybruti, Sembtex, WisVoter, tomjones, JayDean, Gowrie Gal, rapala, blueyedace2, BCO gal, stagemom, Sun Tzu, Overseas, blue jersey mom, kaliope, SBandini, petestern, Shotput8, Pluto, begone, myboo, edwardssl, Themistoclea, profundo, Gottlieb, SherriG, philipmerrill, JVolvo, middleagedhousewife, AllDemsOnBoard, onionjim, sea note, PatConnors, Habitat Vic, karmsy, Mary Mike, deepeco, suejazz, TrueBlueMountaineer, Wreck Smurfy, leonard145b, JML9999, Assaf, TomP, Outside the Echo Chamber, kipzoo, VelvetElvis, OleHippieChick, Involuntary Exile, OutCarolineStreet, monkeybrainpolitics, rssrai, tofumagoo, pamelabrown, hwmnbn, smartdemmg, Jeff Y, catly, Gemina13, clent, maggiejean, enemy of the people, rsmpdx, divineorder, bobatkinson, elziax, MKSinSA, TheOpinionGuy, mksutherland, stevenwag, Tortmaster, GWinkler, LookingUp, Larsstephens, Just Bob, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, smileycreek, Mokurai, David PA, Susan Grigsby, blueyescryinintherain, LOrion, BenderRodriguez, womankind, batchick, ItsSimpleSimon, Puddytat, NYWheeler, rfhusker, Patate, ericlewis0, Onomastic, kerflooey, slowbutsure, implicate order, Mr MadAsHell, Amayi, OhioNatureMom, mrsgoo, PorridgeGun, sethtriggs, badscience, thomask, BarackStarObama, LeftCoastTom, peregrine kate, PhilJD, VTCC73, Vatexia, blue aardvark, Auriandra, allergywoman, Laurel in CA, AnnetteK, hulibow, Liberal Granny, anodnhajo, cwsmoke, Siri, IndieGuy, ahumbleopinion, tb92, peachcreek, carolanne, doroma, Glen The Plumber, Windowpane, ShoshannaD, remembrance, poopdogcomedy, weck, northerntier, USA Driver, Patango, duhban, ekgrulez1, pierre9045, patbahn, jrand, skent4490

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site